longer than intended. Apparently, Dr. Imoke was to remove the catheter, but failed to do so because Dr. Konits failed to inform him that the patient’s chemo- therapy had concluded. Carroll alleged that she suffered a deep vein thrombosis, chronic venous stasis, lymph edema and consequent pain and suffering, as a result of the delayed removal of the catheter. Carroll v. Konits, 2007 Md. LEXIS at 3-4. Four months after filing suit, Carroll filed a letter signed by a medical doctor purporting to constitute a certificate of merit. The letter provided a rough chronology of care and stated the following: In my professional opinion, there was no clear communication to the patient that indicated she should seek medical attention in the re- moval of the catheter from her chest after chemotherapy was com- pleted. If this was done, it was not
documented. Secondly, there was mention made of an approximate time chemo should be completed by Dr. Konits in his consult dated Janu- ary 31, 2002. The note was signed off by Dr. Ohio; however, there was mention of completion of chemo in multiple subsequent office visits. Also, the patient was to follow-up with Dr. Imoke in September 2002. Again, no mention was made that the patient should call sooner if and when chemo ended. Neither was the patient recalled for her September 2002 follow-up. If this was done I do not have a copy of the documentation of it. Thirdly, it does appear that Mrs. Mary Car- roll suffered complications arising from having a catheter in place for too long [,] i.e. a DVT and chronic venous stasis of the right arm with chronic lymph edema.
Carroll v. Konits, 2007 Md. LEXIS at 6. This letter was obviously written by a doctor and not a lawyer. It did not contain a statement directly identify- ing a breach in the standard of care, let alone a statement that a breach in the standard of care caused harm to the plaintiff, although both of these con- clusions are implicit in the text of the letter. In addition, the letter contained no statement of the writer’s qualifica- tions or professional experience, board certification, or litigation activities and failed to identify which of the named defendants breached the standard of care. Once 180 days had passed from the date the complaint had been filed, defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss contending that the “certificate” was deficient. Carroll requested the director of HCADRO grant an additional 60 days to correct the deficiencies “in the inter- ests of justice.” Carroll v. Konits, 2007
Network Support, Systems Integration, Hardware, Software, Managed Services
Authorized/Certified resellers for:
Tabs/PracticeMaster (Time & Billing/Practice Management Software) Amicus Attorney (Practice Management Software) Worldox GX (Document Management Systems) Symantec Dell
Hewlett Packard
Phillips Dictation Equipment Olympus Dictation Equipment
One Call, Many Solutions!
www.byterightsupport.com 410-347-2983
Lower Level 343 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21201 1840 Snydersburg Road Westminster, MD 21157 410.347.2983
www.byterightsupport.com
Fall 2007 Trial Reporter 29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60